A12 's Energy Gateway Suffolk County Council

CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 | P00 20/12/17

CONSULTATION DOCU MENT S uffolk Co unty C ouncil SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

A12 Suffolk's Energy Gateway

Project No: B3553C02 Document Title: CONSULTATION DOCUMENT Document No.: B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 Revision: P00 Date: 8 December 2017 Client Name: Suffolk County Council Client No: Project Manager: Chris McGrath Author: Olivia Fava-Verde

Jacobs

Tower Bridge Court 226 Tower Bridge Road London SE1 2UP T +44 (0)20 7403 3330 F +44 (0)20 7939 1418 www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2017 Jacobs. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

P00 13/12/17 Final OFV DB CJM

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 i SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Contents Executive Summary ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Proposed Route Options ...... 2 1.2 The consultation...... 3 2. Respondents and responses ...... 4 3. Data analysis and interpretation of data ...... 5 3.1 Quantitative analysis ...... 5 3.2 Qualitative analysis ...... 5 3.3 Use of comparative terms in reporting qualitative data ...... 5 3.4 Considerations ...... 6 4. Comments on the current situation ...... 7 5. Comments on the proposed options...... 11 5.1 Route Option 1 (LB2s)...... 13 5.2 Route Option 2 (LB1d) ...... 15 5.3 General comments on both proposed options ...... 17 6. Comments on the consultation ...... 19 7. Organisation responses to open questions...... 20 8. Respondent demographics ...... 24 8.1 Respondents relationship to the existing A12 ...... 30 8.2 Comparing responses by proximity to the existing A12 ...... 33 Appendix A. Organisations contacted about the consultation ...... 34

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 ii SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Executive Summary

Suffolk County Council consulted on two bypass route options for the A12 between and as part of the Suffolk’s Energy Gateway proposals (referred to in this report as ‘SEGway proposals’). This section of the A12 currently suffers from congestion as well as problems with reliability, resilience, accidents, and community severance. A bypass route would help support and deliver economic growth in east Suffolk as well as alleviate congestion and community severance along this roadway. The project would also support and deliver economic growth in east Suffolk.

The consultation ran between 12 September and 25 October 2017 in which information on the proposed route options were made public and two public exhibition events were held. 299 responses to the consultation were received. This report summarises the comments and issues raised as part of those consultation responses.

Respondents highlighted current issues on the existing A12, in particular with regards to congestion and an ability to handle future growth in traffic from potential developments. Safety was also highlighted as a concern on the existing A12.

Overall, there is a general preference for Route Option 2 due to the longer-term benefits of a dual carriageway. Respondents noted that this would enable future growth in traffic as well as growth in the local and regional economy. There was also strong agreement from most respondents that Option 2 would meet the objectives of the scheme.

Some respondents did note a preference for Route Option 1, highlighting that a single carriageway would incur less disruption and less impact. However, some respondents felt that this option would not be cost effective and only a short-term solution.

Several respondents noted concern for both route options. In particular, respondents often raised concerns over the potential environmental impacts of both options. It was felt that a new bypass would have significant detrimental impacts on the Suffolk countryside, impacting on the peaceful landscape and worsening noise and air quality. Some respondents also noted concerns that the options would worsen congestion or impact local businesses and the local economy.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 1 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

1. Introduction

Suffolk County Council sought stakeholder views on two bypass route options (LB2s and LB1d) for the A12 between Saxmundham and Wickham Market. This four-and-a-half-mile section of single carriageway, links two dual carriageway sections of highway. This consultation has been used to inform the Suffolk’s Energy Gateway (SEGway) proposals.

This section of the A12 suffers from problems with congestion, reliability, resilience, accidents, air quality problems and community severance. A bypass route could alleviate congestion and community severance along this roadway. The project would support and deliver economic growth in east Suffolk enhancing the quality of life for residents.

Both options could: · Reduce congestion on the A12 · Reduce traffic volumes through the four villages and their associated impacts, providing greater opportunities for walking, cycling and horse riding · Reduce community severance · Provide more reliable journey times for people and businesses in east Suffolk · Enhance access to economic opportunities

Suffolk County Council consulted between 12 September and 25 October 2017 to gather views on the current situation and on the two proposed options. This report provides a summary of the consultation responses received from statutory stakeholders, businesses, organisations and individuals. Responses to this consultation will allow input into the business case for the project.

1.1 Proposed Route Options

The consultation offered two possible route options for a proposed bypass to the four villages along the A12; Farnham, , and . The proposed routes can be seen in the map below.

Option 1 (LB2s)

A single carriageway route that begins at a new roundabout junction with the A1094 and the A12 Saxmundham Bypass at Friday Street. It then runs south to the east of the A12 and the four villages of Farnham, Stratford St. Andrew, Little Glemham and Marlesford, crossing the rivers Alde and Ore on bridge structures. It re-joins the current A12 alignment where the current dual carriageway Wickham Market Bypass begins.

The proposed new road would follow a relatively direct alignment to reflect the design standards appropriate for a 60mph single carriageway road. The existing A12 through the four villages would be maintained for local access to homes and businesses with connections to the A12 at the new A12/A1094 roundabout and revised A12/B1078 Wickham Market interchange.

A single carriageway would be a cost-effective option which has a slightly shorter build time, however it does not necessarily provide a long-term solution for future growth and development in the region.

Option 2 (LB1d)

A dual carriageway route that begins at a new roundabout junction with the A1094 and the A12 Saxmundham Bypass at Friday Street. It then runs south to the east of the A12 and the four villages of Farnham, Stratford St. Andrew, Little Glemham and Marlesford, crossing the rivers Alde and Ore on bridge structures. It re-joins the current A12 alignment immediately to the north of the A12/B1078 Wickham Market interchange.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 2 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

The proposed new road would follow a more curved alignment to reflect the design standards appropriate for 70mph dual carriageway roads. The existing A12 through the four villages would be maintained for local access to homes and businesses with connections to the A12 at the new A12/A1094 roundabout and revised A12/B1078 Wickham Market interchange.

A dual carriageway would provide greater capacity for future growth, safer vehicle overtaking opportunities and shorter journey times. However, it would take longer to build and would also incur more costs than Option 1.

Figure 1: Consultation Options

1.2 The consultation

Information about the proposals was primarily presented online, with hardcopy information consistent with that on the website also being made available.

The consultation was publicised using an email to the stakeholder contacts and community contacts for the scheme. These included parish and district councils, local councillors, local MPs and key representative groups for the area, such as Chamber of Commerce, the Ramblers Association and Suffolk Preservation Society. These contacts were asked to further disseminate the information to their own networks.

A social media campaign was also undertaken to further raise awareness of the consultation and the proposals.

Two public information events were held at the Riverside Centre in Stratford St Andrew, to allow those interested in the scheme to speak directly to the project team about the proposals.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 3 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

2. Respondents and responses

A total number of 299 responses were received for the consultation. This number includes a combination of on- line, email, and postal responses.

The respondent types were:

Respondent Type Number of Respondents

Individuals 245 Individuals on behalf of a friend or relative 4 A District / Town / Parish Council 12 A voluntary or community sector organisation 4 Businesses 16 Farm 8 Other 2 No respondent type provided 8 Total 299

The list below outlines the organisations who responded to the consultation: · Anglian Pea Growers Ltd · Pigeon Investment Management Ltd · Associated British Ports · Ramblers’ Association – Alde Valley Group · Campsea Ashe Parish Council · Parish Council · EDF Energy · Richard Buxton Solicitors on behalf of the · Environment Agency Bypass Action Group · Farnham with Stratford St Andrew Parish · Snape Parish Council Council · and Reydon Society · Parish Council · Southwold Town Council · Parish Council · East Suffolk (a partnership of · J.M. Blyth &Co District Council and Waveney District Council) · Lang Mead Farm · Suffolk Chamber of Commerce · Lombard Shipping plc · Suffolk Preservation Society · Marlesford Parish Council · Suffolk Wildlife Trust · Mollett's Farm · Wickham Market Parish Council · Peter Aldous MP

Please note that in some cases more than one response was received from an organisation.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 4 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

3. Data analysis and interpretation of data

This report presents analysis of quantitative data from closed questions and qualitative information from open questions.

3.1 Quantitative analysis

Quantitative data is based on the closed questions from the questionnaire which provide set answers for respondents to select. These are reported in our analysis through charts and explanatory text, providing a summary of the responses received.

3.2 Qualitative analysis

Qualitative data is based on the open questions from the questionnaire which allowed respondents to write their own views and comments. These responses were analysed using a code frame which enables us to identify the themes and issues within the response to an open question and assign an identifying ‘tag’ to each theme and issue raised. These tags are then used to guide the reporting of the themes and issues which have emerged across all responses. They are not intended as a means to ‘count’ issues, but can be used to identify some comparative levels of comment, as has been done in this report.

The code frame was developed by the analysis team and informed by the responses received. This approach was taken to ensure that the themes and issues identified were drawn from the responses and to remove any bias in developing the themes and areas of interest.

During the coding process and following the completion of the coding phase, quality assurance processes were carried out to ensure the validity and consistency of the coding which had been applied.

3.3 Use of comparative terms in reporting qualitative data

In reporting qualitative information from open questions, it is usual not to quantify the comments using numbers or percentages. As discussed above, responses to open questions are coded to identify the themes and issues that they raise, and these codes are used to guide reporting and to give an understanding of the comparative regularity and frequency of themes and issues being raised. The codes are not intended to be, and would not be appropriate for, carrying out statistical comparisons.

In place of numbers, terms such as ‘most’, ‘many’, ‘several’ ‘some’ and ‘few’ have been used.

These terms have been applied within the context of each scheme or question, identifying the frequency with which a code (indicating a particular viewpoint) has been used as a proportion of the overall number of comments received. As such, if twenty-eight of one hundred respondents (28%) made a comment under a particular code (for example ‘disagree with the scheme overall’) that would be reported as ‘Several’ respondents raising that issue. The categories have been balanced to give more granularity at lower levels and to highlight the main areas of comment.

These terms have been used in this report as follows:

Term Frequency of code use ‘Most’ 51% -100% ‘Many’ 31% - 50% ‘Several’ 11% - 30% ‘Some’ 2% - 10% ‘Few’ Less than 2%

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 5 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

This approach is intended to allow the reader to consider the comments made on each scheme on a level field. Whilst the number of comments received may differ, the treatment remains the same in discussing the proportion of respondents who held a particular view on that scheme. This reflects the qualitative nature of the information provided to open questions.

3.4 Considerations

It should be noted that those who respond to a consultation are a self-selecting sample, made up of those who have chosen to respond. As such, the findings from a consultation are not necessarily indicative of the views of the wider population. Responses provide a picture of views and issues of those who respond. This provides an invaluable insight into concerns and issues around a proposal, but these views may be skewed to a particular viewpoint and should not be considered a representative sample of the population.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 6 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

4. Comments on the current situation

Questions 7, 8a, 8b and 8c of the questionnaire asked respondents to provide views on the current A12, the impact it has on the local area and daily trips. Responses to Question 7 highlight that a majority respondents feel the A12 has a negative impact.

Effect Count % Negative 129 43.1 No response 73 24.4 Positive 51 17.1 Neutral 46 15.4

Of those who felt that the A12 has a negative impact, respondents suggested that this was largely due to traffic concerns and the ability to cope with future growth from potential developments, safety and environmental issues (in particular air quality and noise impacts). Other causes for current concern included the ability to get onto the A12, dangerous bends, security of properties on the A12 and community severance.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 7 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Question 8b asked respondents how these negative impacts affected their daily lives. In line with responses to Question 8a, some comments were received in respect of congestion that is experienced, and the impact that this has on journey times and willingness and ability to use the A12.

“Causes me to reassess whether to shop in local towns. Sitting in traffic jams and polluting traffic. Expensive.”

“Have to allow 15 mins to get out of our driveway often give up trying to get out of drive - have to try later or phone to say we will be late or not be there in time for event start. Always have to see visitors (and each other if both not in car) out safely and that to turn left, drive to turn at Low Street to head back to Saxmundham.”

There were a range of comments relating to impacts on quality of life. A few respondents commented on the negative impacts that the A12 has on air quality, with a few also commenting on the noise impacts created by the road.

“I’m a shift worker and the constant noise of traffic coupled with speeding and vibrating the house due to heavy goods vehicles effect amount of sleep i get, every time you walk the children to the car you take your life in your hands as we have to park in a layby along the road just as the speed sign tells traffic to speed up, front of house and inside gets dirty from fumes and dirt thrown up by passing traffic, getting out of our driveway onto the main a12 is a balancing act at the best of times.”

“I live on Farnham Bend so all of the above affect me in every possible way. My house shakes when lorries go by, my house has been hit by lorries that have to mount the pavement, I take my life in my hands crossing the road to go for a walk or cycle, I cannot open windows because of the noise and the filth, and family will not visit because of the danger accessing my house.”

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 8 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

A few respondents also commented on the negative impacts of the A12 for safety, including walking cycling and driving.

“Dangerous crossing road by foot and car.”

“When I have to cycle or walk my bike .5km along the A12 to cross, lorries thunder past there is very little space and it feels very unsafe,” Some respondents commented on the issues that they experience in accessing the A12 by vehicle, with some of these respondents noting that this impacts on access to local, regional and national facilities. Some respondents stated that the existing A12 has a negative impact on journey times. A few respondents stated that the existing A12 causes them stress and fatigue.

“Bottlenecks and traffic joins at Farnham and Stratford St Andrew can be frustrating in reducing journey times to places beyond these current A12 areas (like Woodbridge & ). Also causes bad quality of life/work for these areas in particular”

In contrast, a few respondents noted that the current state of the A12 were not unexpected or did not affect them.

“Normal traffic issues associated with a major arterial road.”

“They do not affect 'daily' life for me.”

Question 8c asked respondents if any of the negative impacts highlighted as part questions 8a or 8b would impact on their likelihood of undertaking certain trips. With regards to trips for leisure purposes (such as sports centres or playgrounds), several respondents stated that the negative impacts of the A12 would make them less likely to undertake trips. However overall, most respondents noted that the negative impacts would not stop them from using the A12.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 9 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Yes No Don't know No response Count % Count % Count % Count % Accessing land/farms 25 8.4 25 8.4 9 3.0 240 80.3 Social 48 16.1 61 20.4 2 0.7 188 62.9 Attending school/college 8 2.7 26 8.7 16 5.4 249 83.3 Business travel 21 7.0 34 11.4 9 3.0 235 78.6 Commuting 22 7.4 50 16.7 6 2.0 221 73.9 Leisure 67 22.4 38 12.7 7 2.3 187 62.5 Shopping 55 18.4 65 21.7 2 0.7 177 59.2

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 10 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

5. Comments on the proposed options

Question 10 of the questionnaire asked respondents to outline whether they supported or did not support either or both of the options. Of the 207 who responded to this question, the majority highlighted a preference for Option 2 (but would also accept Option 1). Several respondents also noted that they did not support either Option 1 or 2. 49 respondents would only support Option 2.

The following sections of this chapter provide further detail on responses and comments regarding Route Options 1 and 2.

Opinion Statements Count % I prefer Route Option 1 to Route Option 2, but would accept Route Option 2 2 0.7 I would only support Route Option 1 5 1.7 I have no preference between Route Option 1 and Route Option 2 12 4.0 I would only support Route Option 2 49 16.4 I do not support either Route Option 52 17.4 I prefer Route Option 2 to Route Option 1, but would accept Route Option 1 87 29.1 No response 92 30.8

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 11 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

207 respondents identified a preference in response to this question.

Option 2 was identified as the preferred option by a higher proportion of those who provided a response to this question. 136 (65.7%) of those who provided a preference responded that they would only support Option 2 or would prefer Option 2. 7 respondents (3.4%) who identified a preference stated that they would only support Option 1 or would prefer this option. 12 respondents, 12.8% of those who provided an indication of their preference, stated that they had no preference between the two Options. 52 respondents (25.1%) of those who responded stated that they did not support either route.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 12 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

5.1 Route Option 1 (LB2s)

As part of Question 10, Route Option 1 received a lesser amount of support compared to Option 2. Question 11 allowed respondents to provide comments on the different options.

Several respondents noted opposition to Option 1. These concerns are often rooted in the fact that Route Option 1 is proposed to be a single carriageway, highlighting that this would be a missed opportunity. Respondents also highlight that the two adjoining sections of road which this route would link are already dual carriageway. “Very short sighted to only build a single carriage way road. This doesn't future proof access to the North and over time dual carriageway to the north may be developed.”

Some felt that this option would not be cost effective, highlighting Route Option 1 as a short term solution which could lead to further costs and traffic congestion in the future. A few respondents felt that a cost-saving option was not suitable.

“Single carriageway is short sighted (just look at other examples like Saxmundham) in a very short time people will be asking why didn't they spend the extra money.”

Some respondents outlined concerns that Route Option could have potential negative impacts on congestion, in particular due to increases in traffic volumes as well as congestion caused by traffic accidents. Other respondents felt that Route Option 1 would not be ‘future-proof’ in delivering the long-term needs of the region and of the wider road network. “The volume of traffic will negate the advantage of a single carriageway bypass. Traffic volume increases annually and this will not deal with the gridlock caused by a traffic accident.”

Various environmental concerns were raised by respondents. Some respondents noted concerns with noise and air quality impacts from Route Option 1, and how this would reduce quality of life for those living nearby. Respondents also highlight that the option would have an impact on the local countryside and associated amenities. A few respondents highlighted local habitats and biodiversity, including protected species and ancient woodland.

“The Suffolk countryside is one of Suffolk’s best attractions along with its history. Option 1 will intrude into a very quiet and tranquil area that contains a bluebell wood and a green burial ground and a favourite walk for many most of the year round.” “Route 1 crosses the ecologically sensitive areas associated with the Rivers Ore and Alde and also appears to pass through Foxburrow Wood County Wildlife Site ancient woodland. Also concerned about loss of ancient species-rich hedgerows and the effects of habitat fragmentation, as well as impacts upon protected and Priority species.”

Some respondents expressed support for Route Option 1. Respondents felt that this option would lead to less disruption. Other respondents noted that they would be content with the single carriageway option. “Less disruption, less land use and less harm and disruption to the natural surroundings.”

Question 9 of the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they felt both options would meet the objectives of the scheme. Overall, there is general agreement that Route Option 1 would meet most objectives except for the objective to provide capacity to support and deliver growth. Several respondents also felt that Route Option 1 would not ensure that the A12 could continue to operate as a principle highways corridor.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 13 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Strongly Strongly No No Agree Neutral Disagree Agree Disagree opinion response a. Improve quality of life for Count 48 68 23 19 30 2 109 residents % 16.1 22.74 7.7 6.4 10 0.67 36.5 b. Reduce congestion and Count 32 71 28 28 26 2 112 journey delay % 10.7 23.75 9.4 9.4 8.7 0.67 37.5 Count 31 60 43 32 20 2 111 c. Improve journey time reliability % 10.4 20.07 14.4 10.7 6.7 0.67 37.1 d. Improved productivity for the Count 24 60 45 22 28 8 112 local economy % 8 20.07 15.1 7.4 9.4 2.68 37.5 e. Reduce ‘community Count 48 38 45 22 20 13 113 severance’ % 16.1 12.71 15.1 7.4 6.7 4.35 37.8 Count 26 60 40 38 20 4 111 f. Reduce accidents % 8.7 20.07 13.4 12.7 6.7 1.34 37.1 g. Improve air quality for Count 56 67 31 16 12 5 112 communities alongside the A12 % 18.7 22.41 10.4 5.4 4 1.67 37.5 h. Reduce noise impacts for Count 57 69 32 11 14 2 114

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 14 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Strongly Strongly No No Agree Neutral Disagree Agree Disagree opinion response communities alongside the A12 % 19.1 23.08 10.7 3.7 4.7 0.67 38.1 i. Ensure that the A12 is able to Count 32 56 33 38 25 4 111 continue to operate as the principal highway corridor % 10.7 18.73 11. 12.7 8.4 1.34 37.1 j. Provide the road capacity Count 25 39 37 39 45 2 112 required to enable, support and deliver growth % 8.4 13.04 12.4 13 15.1 0.67 37.5

5.2 Route Option 2 (LB1d)

As part of Question 11, several respondents noted their support for Route Option 2. The dual carriageway aspect was highlighted by some respondents as a positive element of the option, largely due to the fact that it will future-proof the scheme. Respondents refer to the longer term benefits of a dual carriageway, particularly with regards to enabling traffic movements, as well as beneficial impacts on the local economy including tourism and business.

“This is the only route which is looking at [the] long term viability of the area.”

“This is by far the better solution as it will be adequate for a far longer period and be able to contribute to the improved traffic infrastructure to which is essential to support the long term aims for sustainable regeneration of the local economy.”

“This is the only option! We must look to the future regarding volume of traffic, economic growth, improving coastal links for tourism, businesses etc. Do not be short sighted and be governed by the cost of a dual carriageway.”

Some respondents also noted that Route Option 2 would be the safer option due to the dual carriageway.

“Dual carriageway will be a lot safer, there will be no head on collisions. Safer villages.”

“Dual carriageway has to be the right choice it will make journey times quicker and safer and allow for the likelihood of business development along the route allowing for the additional traffic.”

Some respondents did note concern or lack of support with Route Option 2. It was felt that this option would be a waste of money or that the money could be better spent. Respondents also highlighted the more significant impact of Route Option 2 compared to Route Option 1.

“Waste of land and money. Money would be better spent subsidising trains and buses, getting polluters off the roads completely.”

“Option 2 (dual carriageway) would have an even worse impact than option 1.”

A few respondents felt this option was cost effective. Route Option 2 is highlighted as an investment for the future and providing capacity, and therefore provide more long-term support for the region.

“This option provides more capacity and so is an investment for the future and therefore worth the extra money.”

Some respondents were supportive of the fact that the scheme would allow for future growth in traffic in the area. In light of potential growth in traffic and population in the region, improved transport links are highlighted as essential.

“Due to the steady increase in traffic flow this Option will be the only sensible route to be considered.”

There were some concerns with potential environmental impacts, in particular with regards to noise pollution impacts. There is a concern that a dual carriageway in close proximity to communities would increase noise pollution, due to higher speeds of traffic. There are also concerns about the potential impact of the dual

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 15 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

carriageway on the local landscape, including the Alde Valley and other noted ‘scenic’ and ‘beautiful’ areas. There are also concerns over the impact of the scheme on biodiversity. It is noted that Route Option 2 passes through ecologically sensitive areas and that the scheme could have a damaging effect on wildlife.

“Dual carriageway encourages higher speeds and therefore increased road noise. The 'by-passes' are still close to the villages and current road noise is limited by the 30mph speed limits. This needs to be taken into account.”

“We have concerns that both routes may have a significant impact upon biodiversity. Route 2 crosses the ecologically sensitive areas associated with the Rivers Ore and Alde and also appears to pass through Foxburrow Wood County Wildlife Site ancient woodland (non-recreate-able). We are also concerned about loss of ancient species-rich hedgerows and the effects of habitat fragmentation, as well as impacts upon protected and Priority species.”

In response to Question 9 of the questionnaire, there is strong agreement that Route Option 2 would support all of the scheme objectives. There is most agreement that the scheme would reduce congestion, as well as improve quality of life for residents.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 16 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Strongly Strongly No No Agree Neutral Disagree Agree Disagree opinion response Count 128 29 9 9 24 2 98 a. Improve quality of life for residents % 42.8 9.7 3 3 8 0.7 32.8 b. Reduce congestion and journey Count 137 23 10 13 18 2 96 delay % 45.8 7.7 3.3 4.4 6 0.7 32.1 Count 132 24 16 14 10 2 101 c. Improve journey time reliability % 44.2 8 5.4 4.7 3.3 0.7 33.8 d. Improved productivity for the Count 108 28 22 12 21 8 100 local economy % 36.1 9.4 7.4 4 7 2.7 33.4 Count 96 21 36 15 19 14 98 e. Reduce ‘community severance’ % 32.1 7 12 5 6.4 4.7 32.8 Count 111 31 23 18 11 5 100 f. Reduce accidents % 37.1 10.4 7.7 6 3.7 1.7 33.4 g. Improve air quality for communities Count 108 41 21 12 11 6 100 alongside the A12 % 36.1 13.7 7 4 3.7 2 33.4 h. Reduce noise impacts for Count 113 43 14 13 16 2 98 communities alongside the A12 % 37.8 14.4 4.7 4.4 5.4 0.7 32.8 i. Ensure that the A12 is able to Count 131 20 15 11 16 5 101 continue to operate as the principal highway corridor % 43.8 6.7 5 3.7 5.4 1.7 33.8 j. Provide the road capacity required to Count 131 21 10 13 23 2 99 enable, support and deliver growth % 43.8 7 3.3 4.4 7.7 0.7 33.1

5.3 General comments on both proposed options

Throughout the questionnaire, respondents also took the opportunity to provide comments and view on both proposed options. This section addresses those issues raised across the scheme.

Some respondents noted general support for both route options, highlighting that any improvements would help to improve some of the current congestion. However, several respondents noted concern or opposition to both route options. There are concerns that any new road scheme would have significant impacts on the region, or that the new road would shift the existing problems elsewhere. Respondents also highlighted that the route options do not go far enough and are short-sighted and should be part of a wider plan to improve the whole of the A12.

“Any new road will have catastrophic consequences for agricultural, environmental, residential, business, tourism and heritage interests along its route – none of which have been factored into the consultation. I strongly object to any new road construction of this magnitude.”

“Neither of these options solve any of the issues the [Suffolk County Council] has set out to tackle.”

Comments were raised regarding the associated impacts on traffic. A few respondents were concerned that the scheme would lead to further congestion, including at junctions. A few respondents felt that traffic volumes would not be reduced.

A few respondents noted concern over the potential impact of the route options on vulnerable people, including how this may impact those with disabilities. Respondents highlighted the importance of accessibility to community services as well as walks and footpaths.

“There are lovely walks through woods and farmland along footpaths lined with hedgerows all of which needs to be protected not destroyed. […] Both bypass options will destroy this very special and secluded area when on the other side of the A12 there is a marshy area with few footpaths because none can walk there.”

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 17 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Several environmental concerns are raised with regards to both route options. Respondents highlighted concerns with air quality and noise impacts, mirroring those comments raised in relation to Route Options 1 and 2 above. Some respondents request suitable mitigation measures for noise impacts such as low-noise road surfacing and tree planting.

Of the environmental concerns raised, impacts on landscape were raised most often. Respondents made reference to local characteristics, including the tranquillity of the countryside, the valley landscapes and ancient woodlands. A few respondents note concern that the route options could encourage further housing development in the area, impacting on the Suffolk countryside. The local historic environment is also noted, including heritage sites and Suffolk coastal heritage.

“To propose a single or double lane road going through a beautiful valley, is beyond comprehension.”

“The 2 routes were pushing the problem to an area where a lot of people live – through an area of great beauty that should be protected – wildlife, ancient woodlands, tranquillity, effectively a glorious part of Suffolk coastal heritage which attract many tourists and people wishing for a peaceful countryside living.”

Impact on biodiversity is also raised as part of environmental concerns. Respondents make reference to various local habitats and wildlife such as deer and owls. Respondents have highlighted protected species in the area who need to be given due consideration.

“The valleys through which the proposed routes go have a wealth of bio-diversity - rich hedgerows, ancient woodland, wildlife - which it is our duty to preserve and care for, not to destroy.”

A few respondents noted concern that both route options would negatively impact the local economy by affecting local businesses as well as damaging tourism, largely as a result of environmental impacts noted above. Respondents note concern on impact to local livelihoods including farm land and loss of local services. Respondents note the need to replace employment opportunities.

“The damage to the natural beauty of this unspoilt corner of Suffolk will damage tourism and damage the local economy.”

“The inevitable loss of tourism income resulting from the blighting of the valleys, surely has to be taken into account.”

Some respondents made suggestions for the scheme as well as providing alternatives. Some respondents suggest focusing improvements on the Farnham bend and maintain the current A12 route. Other respondents suggest that bypasses should be considered to the north of the villages as well as to the south, on the basis that this would impact less of the environmentally sensitive areas.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 18 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

6. Comments on the consultation

Respondents also provided comments on the way the consultation was managed. These comments can be broken down into the following points.

Some respondents felt that there was not sufficient detail on the proposals included within the consultation materials, including:

· Requests for further data and evidence to support the proposals such as environmental or traffic findings

· Lack of detail on the route options map to help understand potential impacts on the surrounding area

· No reference to potential mitigation measures

· Lack of alternative route options

Respondents noted concern with the running of the consultation events. Some respondents felt that the consultation events and opportunities were not widely advertised or that short notice was provided prior to the events. Others noted that representatives at the consultation events were not able to sufficiently respond to queries or concerns.

Respondents noted concern with the questionnaire, stating they felt it was biased, in particular towards those who support the scheme and a need for a bypass. A few respondents also noted that the questionnaire did not allow for respondents to provide comment on wider local issues. A few comments were made regarding the questionnaire referring to Route Option A and Route Option B, whereas the consultation material always referred to these as Route Option 1 and Route Option 2, which people felt was confusing.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 19 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

7. Organisation responses to open questions

The following section summarises the responses from organisations to the open questions in the consultation. Reydon Parish Council, The Environment Agency, Long Mead Farm, Anglian Pea Growers Ltd, Lombard Shipping Ltd and J.M. Blyth & Co. did not provide any additional information in open questions.

Associated British Ports

Associated British Ports pointed out that ABP Ipswich is the leading agricultural export port, and that ABP Lowestoft is a key component for the Suffolk Energy Gateway. It was suggested that both of these ports will benefit greatly from the proposed schemes, and that any improvement to traffic capability is seen as a positive.

Associated British Ports stated that Route Option 2 was felt to benefit the county and economy due to extra capacity and capability in comparison to Route Option 1, and that Option 2 was their preferred option.

Campsea Ashe Parish Council

The Parish Council felt that here is general agreement in Campsea Ashe of the need for improvement of the A12 north of the B1078 junction to reduce traffic volumes on the existing road, improve road safety and reduce community severance of the four villages.

It was stated that there is less certainty about which of the two routes is preferable or whether an alternative solution is required.

The Parish Council stated that both proposed routes cross environmentally sensitive water meadows impacting negatively on biodiversity and landscape; the latter resulting in visual intrusion. The Parish Council also felt there may be a negative impact on sites of historic interest, including local heritage assets.

The Parish Council felt that both north and, particularly, the south junctions of the proposed bypass are likely to create additional traffic along the B1078 and minor roads through Campsea Ashe. The potential increasing number of HGV movements is a major concern for the Parish Council, given that the B1078 is not part of the county’s designated lorry route.

The Parish Council stated that whilst there are economic benefits, they felt that there remains uncertainty as to whether an average three-minute journey time saving is commensurate to such a large financial commitment on a project that will also create an overall negative environmental impact.

EDF Energy

EDF Energy stated their support for the objectives of the County Council to deliver economic growth in East Suffolk and enhance the quality of life for residents.

The company referenced their own C Stage 2 Consultation, which included options for proposed works to the A12 in connection with Sizewell C. EDF Energy stated that they will continue to develop and promote an alternative scheme in order to adequately mitigate the impacts of Sizewell C construction traffic along the A12, and that it is envisaged that their application could be structured to enable either option to be delivered.

Farnham with Stratford St Andrew Parish Council.

The Parish Council stated that the existing A12 has a negative impact on the local area, with residents who live adjacent to the A12 suffering damage to their properties as a result of vibration and pollution.

The Parish Council’s preference was Route Option 2, but stated that Route Option 1 would also be acceptable. They also requested that due consideration is given to any home owners or land owners that may be impacted by the proposed routes.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 20 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Great Glemham Parish Council

The Parish Council supported Route Option 2, given the likely increase in traffic to the Sizewell C site and the other sites and developments listed in the consultation paper. The Parish Council requested signage encouraging drivers to use the bypass and to deter others from driving through the villages.

Hacheston Parish Council

The Parish Council stated that the daily lives of residents of Hacheston are affected by delays, slow driving and the inability to overtake slower drivers.

The Parish Council requested that the Modified Preferred Route which accepted by the inspector in the 1995 Public Inquiry, be considered.

Marlesford Parish Council

Marlesford Parish Council stated that they only support Route Option 2.

The Parish Council raised concerns that many of Marlesford’s residents, as they go about their daily lives, will suffer from the negative impacts set out in the consultation document.

The Parish Council felt that the volume of traffic on the A12 at Marlesford has now reached a level which means that it is very difficult at certain times of the day to turn right onto the A12 from either Bell Lane or Marlesford Road. The Parish Council felt that the Bell Lane junction has very limited visibility and is dangerous. The Marlesford Road junction has reasonably good visibility, but the Parish Council stated that the traffic is often travelling at more than the 40mph limit on this stretch of road, making it difficult to cross the traffic flow onto the south-bound carriageway.

The Parish Council raised concerns regarding the noise from the A12, which they felt was an intrusion into this quiet rural environment and that pollution is now a major concern, particularly at Stratford St Andrew and Farnham.

The Parish Council stated that the only bus stop in Marlesford is on the A12. They also stated that crossing the A12 on foot is difficult, but for older people (the section of the community most likely to be using the bus service) it is particularly dangerous.

The Parish Council drew attention to the document “Proof of Evidence of Lord Marlesford Chairman of the Marlesford Parish Council to the Public Enquiry on the A12 Wickham Market to Saxmundham Road Improvement”. This was submitted to the Public Enquiry held in 1995 into the route of the then proposed four village bypass. The Parish Council felt that the arguments set out in the Proof of Evidence remain relevant today, and urged Suffolk County Council to adopt a route for Route Option 2 which as far as possible follows the Modified Preferred Route accepted by the Inspector in 1995.

Member of Parliament for Waveney

Peter Aldous MP expressed the opinion that there has been a need to improve the road infrastructure for the A12 north of Wickham Market and south of Saxmundham for some time. He stated that there have been longstanding problems with traffic build-up having negative knock-on effects on the environment and on the tourism industry which is of vital importance to Suffolk’s economic prosperity.

Peter Aldous stated that from an environmental point of view, it is clear that the build-up of static traffic has a negative impact with increased vehicle emissions and also through the volume of noise pollution. Suggested that Suffolk should continue to be a ‘Green’ county and any measure, such as a bypass, that would increase traffic flow and therefore reduce emissions and noise pollution, would be desirable and would be supported.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 21 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

The MP welcomed measures such as infrastructure improvements, that would bring economic benefits to the area, and the constituency of Waveney, and pointed out that the A12 needs to be flowing freely throughout the year for the region to economically prosper.

Strongly stated support for the dual carriage option bypassing Marlesford, Little Glemham, Stratford St Andrews and Farnham (Route Option 2) on the grounds of safety, traffic flow and cost efficiency. Peter Aldous also said that there are clear economic and environmental benefits for Suffolk as a whole in pursuing this option.

Mollett's Farm Partnership

Mollett’s Partnership submitted a detailed response covering a number of points.

The Partnership criticised the lack of detailed information on display at public events and lack of detailed route design. They stated that the consultation questionnaire pre-supposes local population support for the proposed plans, and does not consider those that may be disadvantaged by the plans.

The Partnership also questioned the economic argument for the plans, stating any time benefits would be negated by existing bottlenecks such as the Woodbridge and bypass and Copdock Roundabout.

The Partnership stated that there was a lack of clarity of the published Route Option maps, and asked what happened to the alternative routes to the west of the A12.

The Partnership also requested more detailed information on noise and vibration impacts, access to Mollett’s Farm, and the negative impact that this may have on their self-catering and caravan site visitors. The Partnership state that many local businesses will suffer a loss of trade resulting from the proposals.

Ramblers’ Association – Alde Valley Group

The Association criticised the exhibition at Stratford St Andrew, due to no new material being available than was already published on the website.

The Association commented that the poor quality of the map does not show public rights of way, and which of these may be severed by the proposals.

The Association requested that bridges or subways be provided, and that if these cannot be provided there must be controlled crossing points and severe speed restrictions.

Richard Buxton Solicitors on behalf of the Bypass Action Group

Richard Buxton Solicitors asked why the A12 Four Villages Study or the Strategic Outline Business Case report were not consulted on. Also made various comments about the perceived lack of detail on the consultation, and the impact of any proposed scheme on the environment.

Snape Parish Council The Parish Council supports these proposals which will markedly improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of these villages, whilst also improving the present poor road access for business activity in the eastern parts of Suffolk and Norfolk.

The Parish Council raised concerns regarding what happens to traffic at the northern end of the proposed bypass. They felt that a major junction at the Friday Street location on the A12 will funnel traffic destined for , , the Snape Maltings and, possibly, Sizewell C development, down the A1094. This would potentially increase congestion on this road and at the already hazardous Snape Crossroads junction. The Parish Council requested that proposals to resolve this problem be considered as part of the overall traffic management arrangements in this part of Suffolk.

Southwold and Reydon Society

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 22 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

The Society stated that Route Option 2 is by far the better solution as it would be adequate for a far longer period and be able to contribute to the improved traffic infrastructure to Lowestoft which is essential to support the sustainable regeneration of the local economy.

Southwold Town Council

Southwold Town Council stated that only Route Option 2 would provide any advantages.

Suffolk Chamber of Commerce

The Chamber of Commerce stated that Route Option 2 is their preferred route.

Suffolk Costal & Waveney District Council

Economic growth is the primary reason that the District Councils are supportive of improvements to the Suffolk Energy Gateway as detailed in the East Suffolk Business Plan. The Business Plan identifies the four village bypass as an integral component of improvements to the A12 as a needed project.

The District Council expressed the opinion that there is greater development potential in the rural hinterland, and this could potentially be unlocked as a result of investment in improved access in East Suffolk.

The District Council stated that the potential for regeneration benefits for Lowestoft supported by growth in the area and ease of transport would be a huge positive to the scheme. They felt that growth can support commercial and industrial development in these areas including enabling greater support for existing nationally significant infrastructure projects in the vicinity, alongside the potential major infrastructure development of Sizewell C.

The District Council stated that there is an existing perception of community severance in Stratford St Andrew and Farnham caused by the A12 cutting through the villages, a bypass could significantly reduce the level of traffic using this route and thus improve community cohesion in the villages. This element is seen as an important benefit by both District Councils.

The District Council stated that it is clear that Route Option 2 meets more of the objectives.

It was requested that the local residents be appropriately involved in the process of delivery of any scheme. It was requested that responses from this round of public consultation be taken into consideration in moving the project forward and that there should be a further stage of public consultation enabling greater detail to be presented.

Suffolk Preservation Society

The Society commented that they felt there is inadequate detail included in this consultation to assess the likely environmental impacts on the landscape and heritage.

Suffolk Wildlife Trust

The Trust noted concerns with both routes regarding their potential impact upon biodiversity. The Trust ntoed that Routes 1 and 2 cross the ecologically sensitive areas associated with the Rivers Ore and Alde, as well as through Foxburrow Wood County Wildlife Site ancient woodland. The Trust also noted concern with loss of ancient species-rich hedgerows and the effects of habitat fragmentation, as well as impacts upon protected and Priority species.

Wickham Market Parish Council

Wickham Market Parish Council stated that they supported proposals to bypass the four villages, and favoured Route Option 2.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 23 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

8. Respondent demographics

Respondents were asked to provide demographic information; however, this was not mandatory. The charts below summarise those responses where this information was provided. A majority of respondents who stated their gender were male (33%) and 20% were female. The majority of respondents did not disclose this information. A majority of respondents who stated their age were between 45 and 74 years old. This is partially in line with Suffolk’s Diversity Profile (2012), however those below 25 years old are less represented.

Gender Count % Prefer to self-describe 1 0.3 Prefer not to say 8 2.7 Female 59 19.7 Male 100 33.4 No response 131 43.8

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 24 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Age Count % Prefer not to say 4 1.3 16-24 4 1.3 25-34 9 3.0 35-44 19 6.4 45-54 38 12.7 55-64 39 13.0 65-74 44 14.7 75+ 9 3.0 No response 133 44.5

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 25 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

A majority of respondents stated that they either did not have a disability or opted not to respond to the question. Of those who did state a disability, mobility was the most significant type highlighted by respondents, followed by hearing impairments or long-standing health conditions.

Disability Count % No 147 49.2 Yes 17 5.7 No Response 135 45.2

With regards to ethnicity, a majority of respondents identified as White English or White British, in line with the Suffolk Diversity Profile 2012. 25% of respondents identified as Christian, and 23% stated they had no religion or belief. A majority of respondents who responded regarding sexual orientation identified as heterosexual.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 26 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Ethnicity Count % White: English 112 37.5 White: British 41 13.7 Prefer not to say 6 2.0 White: Welsh 3 1.0 Other 3 1.0 White: Scottish 2 0.7 White: Irish 2 0.7 Chinese 1 0.3 Did not respond 129 43.1

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 27 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Religion Count % Christian 77 25.8 No religion 71 23.7 Prefer not to say 12 4.0 Other (please specify) 3 1.0 Pantheist 1 0.3 Jewish 1 0.3 Did not respond 134 44.8

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 28 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Count % Heterosexual 128 42.8 Prefer not to say 16 5.4 Other (please specify) 5 1.7 Gay man 3 1.0 Bisexual 2 0.7 Same sex relationship with a man 1 0.3 No sexuality 1 0.3 Did not respond 143 47.8

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 29 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

8.1 Respondents relationship to the existing A12

We also asked respondents about how they currently used the A12. To support our understanding of A12 usage, we asked respondents where they lived in relation to the A12. Most respondents lived to the north of the A12, closely followed by those living to the south. A small minority of respondents (6%) did not live near the A12.

Question 4 asked how close respondents lived to the existing A12. A significant amount lived less than 1km away from the A12, with 18% living less than 10m away.

North or South of A12 Count % I do not live near the A12 18 6.0 South 101 33.8 North 112 37.5 No response 68 22.7

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 30 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Distance from A12 Count % More than 1km 77 25.8 Less than 10m 54 18.1 201m - 500m 36 12.0 501m - 1km 28 9.4 I do not live near the A12 14 4.7 11m - 100m 14 4.7 101m - 200m 12 4.0 No response 64 21.4

Question 5 asked respondents how often they used the A12 for different purposes. The most regular trips appear to be made for shopping, leisure, social and commuting purposes. The rarer or less regular trips appear to be made for education as well as business travel (excluding commutes to / from work).

When asked how respondents made those trips (Question 6), the majority of respondents stated that they used the car. Several respondents also stated that they cycled or walked on the A12, in particular for leisure purposes as well as accessing land or farms. Other forms of transport used by respondents include motorcycles and caravans.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 31 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

No Regularity of Trips Daily Weekly Monthly Occasionally Rarely Never response Count 19 22 11 7 7 78 155 Accessing land/farms % 6.4 7.4 3.7 2.3 2.3 26.1 51.8 Count 57 90 33 9 6 6 98 Social % 19 30.1 11 3 2 2 32.8 Count 20 7 4 2 3 96 167 Attending school/college % 6.7 2.3 1.3 0.7 1 32.1 55.9 Count 45 27 12 18 14 46 137 Business travel % 15.1 9 4 6 4.7 15.4 45.8 Count 67 35 10 11 7 43 126 Commuting % 22.4 11.7 3.3 3.7 2.3 14.4 42.1 Count 57 78 33 12 8 2 109 Leisure % 19 26 11 4 2.7 0.7 36.5 Count 73 89 20 15 3 6 93 Shopping % 24.4 29.8 6.7 5 1 2 31.1

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 32 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

8.2 Comparing responses by proximity to the existing A12

In order to identify any variation in views between those closest to the proposed routes and those further away, a comparison was made between responses from those in ‘IP13’ and ‘IP17’ postcodes and those from other postcode areas. The ‘IP13’ and ‘IP17’ postcodes encompass the area around the existing A12 between Wickham Market and the A1094 junction and were considered to be a sensible means to define an area to be treated as closest to the proposed routes and existing A12 in the area.

In most cases, the comparison did not identify significant differences between the patterns of responses or views from the two groups. There were four areas where variations were noted:

· Responses to Question 5, which asked about the regularity of trips using the A12 showed that a higher proportion of those living closer to the route used the A12 more regularly for all trip types. However, this would be expected. · Question 8c asked whether the negative impacts of the existing A12 impacted on their likelihood to make trips using the A12. The comparison showed that those outside the immediate area were more likely to respond that there is an impact on their willingness to make trips using the A12, but this may be attributed to the greater range of alternative routes that they are likely to have. · Respondents indicated their level of agreement that option 1 and option 2 supported the stated objectives in responding to question 9. The comparison showed that more of those outside the immediate area were neutral in their views. However, this may be because they have less direct interest and investment in the A12 to inform their views. · Similarly, those outside the immediate area reported more ‘neutral’ responses when asked about the impact of the existing A12 on the local area. Again, this may be due to those outside the area having less interest and investment.

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 33 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

Appendix A. Organisations contacted about the consultation

The following organisations were contacted to give them details of the consultation and request their response:

· Local MPs · Glemham Hall · Anglia Upholstery & Soft Furnishings Limited · Glemham Hall Shoot Ltd · Archdeacon of Suffolk · Great Glemham Parish Council · Associated British Ports (Ipswich & Lowestoft) · Great Supplies · Benhall Parish Council · Green Future Energy · Parish Council · Historic · Brick Kiln Farm Cottage · Hutchison Ports · Bucks Head Cottage · J S Latham Farmer · Campaign to Protect Rural England · J.A. Littler Consultancy Ltd · Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport · JDE (Suffolk) Limited · Church Farm · K French Car Body Repairs · Confederation of British Industry · Leigh Language School · Confederation of Passenger Transport · Little Glemham Parish Council · Country Land Owners Association · Little Glemham Parish Room · CTC · Lower Hacheston Parish Council · Debney Cottages · Marlesford Community Council · Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich · Marlesford Parish Council · Doe Ernest & Sons · Marlesford Village Hall · Dotmatix Limited · Maximus Sustainable Fishing · Tourist Board · Bridleways Association · East Suffolk (a partnership of Suffolk Coastal · Mint and Mustard Produce Ltd District Council and Waveney District Council) · Moat Farm Stables & Kennels · Energy Services and Technology Association · Mollett's Farm (Hotel) (ESTA) · Natural England - York Head Office · Environment Agency · New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership · Farm Café and Shop · Numbers Accountancy Ltd · Farmers Union · Numbers Accountancy Suffolk LLP · Farnham Leisure Limited (formerly David Hope) · Oliver Hayward Playbarn and Café · Farnham Parish Council · Ore Valley Holiday Cottages · Federation of Small Businesses · P W Hope-Cobbold · Freight Transport Association · Park Gate Farm · Friends of the Earth · Ramblers Association · Fulton Guitars · Redhouse FC · Glebe Farm · Road Haulage Association · Glemham Events

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 34 SEGWAY CONSULTATION REPORT

· Royal Society for the Protection of Birds · Suffolk Local Access Forum · Sink Farm · Suffolk Preservation Society · SMC Recovery · Sustrans · Snape Parish Council · The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee · Parish Council · The Haven Gateway Partnership · Stowe Building Contractors Limited · The Lion Inn · Stratford Antiques · The Old Mill Trading Company (Marlesford) · Stratford Garage Services Limited · Stratford Riverside Centre · The Red Hot and Blue Orchestra Ltd · Stratford St Andrew Parish Council · The-Barn.co · Suffolk Chamber in Lowestoft & Waveney · Tourism Alliance · Suffolk Chamber of Commerce · Trainclaimz Ltd · Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Area of Outstanding · Transport focus Natural Beauty · Wickham Market Parish Council · Suffolk Coastal Port Health Authority · Wildlife Trust

B3553C02-JAC-VSS-00-REP-ZH-0001 35